Sunday, December 25, 2011


Hopefully the title of this post is politically correct enough to have not offended anyone. Because if there's one thing we Americans do well, it's celebrate diversity.

Just look at the last forty years-we'll invade anyone!

Speaking of invasions, the war on Christianity in our country has taken many forms, but none are so hostile as the assault on the Christmas holiday.

From substituting words in Christmas carols to banning expressions of the holiday, like nativity scenes and Christmas trees, the assault on Christmas is not only silly, but executed rather poorly, since it is virtually impossible to ignore the holiday's Christian roots.

There's the name....Christ's Mass. No religious or Christian connotation there, right?

There's that jolly old guy with the wait, that was Clarence Clemons. I mean the guy with the red suit and white beard.

Atheists and agnostics alike line up to buy Christmas presents and to seat their children on Santa's lap.

Santa Claus.

That would be short for Saint Nicholas, a Catholic icon.

Well, there are no atheists in Black Friday sales.

And I know it's politically correct to say "winter celebration" or "holiday event" but isn't it funny how at the end of the day the holiday is observed on December 25 and churches are stuffed to capacity but we don't dare say the words...

Merry Christmas!

I know Americans all want to believe that the words "separation of church and state" are in the Constitution (they are not) and that our founding fathers were not Christian (they were), but even more importantly is the fact that among the commercialization and political correctness we've forgotten that this holiday isn't even really about us at all.

It's about Him!

Saturday, November 12, 2011


I really did not expect to be posting anything on this blog for several weeks, as things on the work front are still bordering on the insane.

But this has been stuck in my craw all week and I had to hack it out.

You see, young children are our future.

All right, I know that borders on a quote of a Whitney Houston lyric.

But mistreatment of children really pisses me off, and I am not even a parent. I can only imagine how parents feel about this story.

Every adult, every last friggin one of us has a DUTY to protect children from the adults who would prey on their innocence.

On November 5, a former Penn State assistant coach was arrested on charges of child molestation, beginning a chain of events at the university that culminated in the firing of beloved football coach Joe Paterno.

When I first heard the story, and heard “young boys,” I was thinking college-aged boys.

While I still was disgusted, I thought if they’re old enough to go kill senselessly in the Middle East, they’re old enough to know don’t go into a shower with a perverted coach.

Then I started reading some details.

And, if the allegations are true, they’re disturbing.

Jerry Sandusky, a now retired defensive coordinator at Penn State once touted as a possible replacement for Paterno, was charged with multiple accounts of child sexual abuse.

Sandusky allegedly used a charity that he had created to help young boys as a means of gaining access to his victims.

In 2002, a graduate assistant on the football team witnessed Sandusky having sex with a young boy in a Penn State shower.

The badly shaken assistant informed Paterno the next day;

Paterno in turn informed the two administrators who have now been indicted.

But nothing much happened.

No police report was ever made.

Sandusky was not arrested, and as a result the alleged assaults were allowed to continue.

The overwhelming moral and legal obligation of adults to protect children in such vulnerable circumstances was ignored.

Paterno and university officials had a RESPONSIBILITY to make sure that event was given the attention it deserved.

If the allegations are proven true, Paterno and the university are culpable in every act of abuse perpetrated by Sandusky after that day.

After Paterno’s dismissal, thousands of students stormed the downtown area to display their anger and frustration, chanting the former coach’s name, tearing down light poles and overturning a television news van parked along College Avenue.

Demonstrators tore down two lampposts, one falling into a crowd. They also threw rocks and fireworks at the police, who responded with pepper spray.

Now maybe the turning over of the van was symbolic of the children that Paterno threw under the bus by worrying more about winning football games than children.

Somehow I doubt it.

I do not care if Paterno coached the football team to a thousand straight victories after that day-if even one child could have been spared, it was worth every victory Paterno ever presided over.

Because simply put, football is just a game.

Once the season is over, it’s pretty much forgotten. At least, it should be.

To the children, the abuse may never be forgotten.

As a former Pennsylvania resident, I used to see news stories all the time about how Paterno was dedicated to making sure the students grew up to be good adults.

I guess that only applied to his players.

He sure didn’t give a damn about the kid in the shower. Or the last kid, or the next kid.

I am not saying Paterno needs to be vilified as a child abuser.

But to every student who was out whooping it up on Wednesday night, you know this was more about an excuse to get drunk and misbehave than anything else.

Every adult has a duty to protect iinocent children.



And the board of trustees did not put a cloud over the end of his coaching era.

He did it to himself.

And you should all be ashamed of yourselves.

Saturday, October 29, 2011


As the calendar turns into November, I am finding it harder to find time to compose posts.

My day job has become more and more demanding (longer days, longer weeks) and the travel has increased.

There have also been echanges and debates over content here that simply hold no interest for me, but seem to cause friction for others. Lately, I have neither the time nor inclination to deal with things that do not interest me or to invite friction.

For these reasons, I have decided to take the following steps.

(1) My sports blog, started earlier in the month, has been archived and deleted. Like pets, it seems that with blogs, three is too many. I am sure that the legion of three followers will be able to overcome their grief.

(2) I am taking a sabbatical from this blog until work slows down. It's not like America can get much worse off, anyway, and Americans sure don't look like they're going to all of sudden put down their remotes if I post just one more diatribe.

(3) On my music blog, I have reviews scheduled to auto-post through early December, should anyone have an interest.

Between now and then, I'll ponder the merits of continuing this blogging experiment.

This is not an appeal for followers, just a note to inform you why the activity here is slowing to a crawl. Okay, actually to a dead stop.

I appreciate the readers who have visited, and will still visit the blogs I normally frequent.

"Show me round the snow-peaked mountains way down south

Take me to you daddy's farm
Let me hear you balalaikas ringing out
Come and keep your comrade warm
I'm back in the USSR"


Tuesday, October 25, 2011


You gotta give this blog credit for going from the sublime to the ridiculous!

From America's burned-out moral compass to "are you freakin' kiddin' me?" I bring you what Americans do get riled up about instead of things like murder, abortion (a synonym for murder), adultery, and waging illegal and unconstitutional wars on people in countries who don't think we're cool (yet even more murder).

Yep-Americans worry the that brand name of ice cream is responsible for our moral decay!

Ben & Jerry's new limited-edition flavor 'Schweddy Balls' ice cream has brought chuckles from fans of the "Saturday Night Live" skit on which it's based, some supermarket chains feel that the flavor is too controversial and not up to the standards of, say the National Enquirer and Weekly World News.

The flavor featuring fudge-covered rum balls has been absent from some grocery freezers since it was unveiled. The title was inspired by an innuendo-laced 1998 skit featuring Alec Baldwin as baker Pete Schweddy, who promises, "No one can resist my Schweddy balls."

But apparently some grocery store chains can, and so can supporters and members of the One Million Moms group.

That Mississippi-based moms organization has been putting the heat on retailers to keep Schweddy Balls out of their freezers and encouraging parents to ask the Vermont-based Ben & Jerry's to stop production of the item, saying the name is nothing but locker room humor that's not appropriate for young children.

I can see that-the Call Of Duty and Grand Theft Auto video games teach our children family values that we don't want eroded by a reference to a ten-year old Saturday Night Live skit that the kids won't even understand because they WEREN'T BORN YET!

Ben & Jerry's spokesman Sean Greenwood said Thursday that Schweddy Balls has quickly become the most popular limited-edition flavor the company has produced.

But it was these unclean Schweddy Balls that raised the ire of the conservative One Million Moms group.

Monica Cole, director of the Tupelo, Miss.-based organization, said "The vulgar new flavor has turned something as innocent as ice cream into something repulsive. Not exactly what you want a child asking for at the supermarket."

Here's the SNL skit....if you think your immortal soul can stand it!
And here's a tase test on The View!
To the One Million Moms...can you guys PLEASE get behind something that frigging matters?
Your kids are being taught far worse than Schweddy Balls in those dung-holes you call public schools-why aren't you up in arms about that?
You're like the people in the condo association who send out tickets because there's a blade of grass the wrong length!
Yeah, I know America means freedom for everyone, but're squandering yours!
Watch out you pious ones-B&J makes Karamel Sutra ice cream, too!

Thursday, October 20, 2011


The company I work for just completed its annual push for all employees to complete an ethics questionnaire.

Apparently, under the Sarbanes Oxley regulations, this questionnaire will insure that every individual will act ethically.

It strikes me as odd that we have come to a point where we need to do this every year!

Are there really adult people in the USA who are not elected officials who do not know that things like stealing and lying are wrong?

And do we need Sarbanes Oxley laws to tell us what is and isn't wrong?

Didn't Charlton Heston give us all of the rules we need in that Cecil B. Demille classic?

We already had all the laws we need.

As much as Bill Maher likes to ridicule them, the Ten Commandments cover pretty much everything.

In fact, there was an obscure fellow from Nazareth named Jesus who even gave us a simpler law...the Golden Rule.

Remember that one?

Something about doing unto others?

But something has happened in our society over the last half century.

We've perfected our ability to rationalize our behavior.

In a specch he mad in the nineties, Alan Keyes tied this back to the legalization of abortion. After all, if we could rationalize the murder of an unborn innocent, what other behavior would we not be able to rationalize?

I agree with Dr. Keyes that abortion is unjust and immoral, but never took the next step in reasoning that he did.

Keyes said, "If we are killing our babies today, it is not just because of our lust, and not just because of our indifference, and our desire to achieve our agendas at every cost and indulge our own satisfaction and give in to our own fears."

What other behavior could we rationalize?

Look at the last several decades!

Increase in drug usage.

Increase in random violence.

Proliferation of casual sex to the point that sexually transmitted diseases were running rampant.

The above behaviors are not the problem, they are the symptoms.

The problem we are dealing with is a moral problem.

Fifty years ago, we did not have a lot laws governing the above behaviors, nor were these behaviors problems.

The fundamental discipline that was prevailing in our society all those years ago has broken down.

We have a moral crisis.

That IS the problem.

Sunday, October 16, 2011


What do you do when your state is weathering a budget crisis and is running a $10 billion dollar budget shortfall?

Well, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill on Saturday  giving illegal immigrant college students access to state-funded financial aid.

Yep, now American taxpayers are paying for illegal aliens to GO TO COLLEGE!

This is the second half of a two-part legislation known as the "Dream Act," presumably named for the only state of reality where a government can continue to spend money like water and still balance their budget.

"Going to college is a dream that promises intellectual excitement and creative thinking," Brown said in a written statement issued by his office. "The Dream Act benefits us all by giving top students a chance to improve their lives and the lives of all of us,"

Of course, the college graduates will need to leave America to realize this improvement in life, as the only opportunities left for them in this country will be call center jobs and the challenge of asking someone if they want to super-size their order for five dollars more.
A federal Dream Act that would have created a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who attend college or serve in the military failed in Senate last year.

Opponents of the California Dream Act have argued that public funds should not be used to help illegal immigrants, especially as California faces deep budget woes that have prompted cuts in education and higher tuitions at the state's public colleges and universities.

Call me silly, call me jingoistic, but something about giving American tax dollars to a group of people with the word ILLEGAL in its name sort of goes against the grain for me.

Good luck balancing that budget, California.

Thursday, October 13, 2011


American icon Tony Bennett took to the airwaves at Sirius Radio to promote his new album, “Duets II,” but it’s what he said about war, peace, terrorism, and who was to blame for the Sept. 11 terror attacks that could get people talking.

Sitting down with Howard Stern, the 85-year-old singer had definite opinions about other wars involving the United States.

“To start a war in Iraq was a tremendous, tremendous mistake internationally,” he said.

Stern then asked Bennett about how America should deal with terrorists, specifically those responsible for the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center.

“But who are the terrorists? Are we the terrorists or are they the terrorists? Two wrongs don’t make a right,” Bennett said.

In a soft-spoken voice, the singer disagreed with Stern’s premise that 9/11 terrorists’ actions led to U.S. military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“They flew the plane in, but we caused it,” Bennett responded.

Following seconds of silence, Stern said that his guest was “making some good points.”

Sunday, October 9, 2011


I don’t know how families do it.

And I’m not just talking about the pain of listening to “Queen Of The Supermarket” on Bruce Springsteen’s last album.

In recent months, grocery items have fluctuated in price like stocks, and I have noticed my total at the register steadily creep up without much change in buying habits.

Some theorize that prices on things like gas, food, and stocks are inflating because of the printing of enormous amounts of money bu our friends at the Federal Reserve.

In other words, it’s not that the prices are going up but that the value of the dollar is dropping.

Why should that concern you?

If prices go up, it’s a function of supply and demand.

If I have a gallon of gas, and only one buyer, I’m pretty much going to sell that gallon for what the buyer is willing to pay. If I have five buyers, there will be a bidding war, especially if I have the only gallon of gas in town.

And even if the gallon of gas drives a price increase in other items, the market will still be a factor, and only those items dependent on gas are in play.

If the value of the dollar drops, it affects the value of everything.

All the hard-earned dollars in your 401K?

Worth less.

Your house?

Worth less?

Anything imported from overseas?

Do we even manufacture anything here?

If the dollar is worth less, goods cost more.

For years, our government’s overspending was funded by the purchase of US debt securities by foreign countries. Countries like China, who had been keeping us afloat, have stopped investing their money in US government debt.

Why is that?

Well, they question our ability to repay it.

You see, unlike the American people, the Chinese are smart enough to know that simply printing more money is a BAD thing.

In a few years, the baby boomers will start to retire. And as much as people joke about they won’t be able to afford to retire, some will HAVE to retire due to health reasons.

That means that the work force left to tax to support the aging population who will be drawing benefits on Social Security and Medicare will be smaller.

And in case you didn’t know, the money that comes out of your paycheck for these entitlement programs does not go into a savings account with your name on it.

It is being spent today.

On current benefits, and on wars in Asia, and on bailouts and cash for name it. All the things that American voters couldn't live without.

So if you’re under forty, when the time comes for me to draw benefits, they’re going to be looking to tap YOUR paycheck.

And that tax that is currently 7.5% or so is going to go up. Dramatically.

And I hope that when that happens, all of the government excess that is going on today will seem worth it to you.

And your children.

Because that's who is really getting SCREWED by all of this.

And it's our fault, children of the sixties and seventies.

Our parents left us a better future than they had, and we're leaving our children a welfare state.

And why?

So we can own iPods or iPads or Kindles or other overpriced electronics, expensive cars and all sorts of other crap that we can't afford and buy anyway on credit.

And then we encourage our government to do the same thing.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011


To be irradiated or to be groped--that is the question.

TSA began deploying state-of-the-art advanced imaging technology in 2007.

This technology can detect a wide range of threats to transportation security in a matter of seconds to protect passengers and crews. Imaging technology is an integral part of TSA's effort to continually look for new technologies that help ensure travel remains safe and secure by staying ahead of evolving threats.

According to the TSA, advanced imaging technology screening is safe for all passengers, and the technology meets national health and safety standards. In addition, they claim to have installed software that prevents the screener from seeing "passenger-specific images," which means they aren't looking at your "junk."

In addition to AIT scanners, the TSA has also implemented what they euphamistically call "enhanced pat-downs".

This procedure entails a TSA agent running their hands along a person's body, including the breast, inner thigh and groin area. Generally, if staffing permits, a traveler with be frisked by a TSA agent of the same gender.

The "enhanced pat-down" is to be applied under various circumstances:

* If some form of anomoly appears in the AIT scan.

* If a traveler is wearing baggy clothing.

* If a traveler refuses to submit to the AIT scan.

So while you do have the right to refuse the AIT scan, if you exercise that right, you will be subjected to the "enhanced pat-down".

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

The TSA seems to be implying that when you purchase an airline ticket and subsequently step into the security screening area, you have voluntarily waived your Fourth Amendment rights.

Mr. Stephen T. McCarthy has already posted several pieces regarding this invasion of your rights, but it seems that most Americans are only too willing that all of the stupid human tricks we are asked to perform in the name of airline security actually make us safer, so I won't go into that here.

What I will go into here is the continued stupidity of the American people who believe you get something for nothing, and trust the government to do anything efficiently.

These fancy new machines have a price tag of $200,000 each. I would imagine there are set-up costs as well, as they probably need a little electricity to operate, and who knows how much computer infrastructure. The fiscally prudent Barry Obama allocated $1 billion to the TSA under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to buy these fancy new machines.

In addition, the TSA costs us $8 billion dollars annually.

Do you feel safer?

I don't.

Wanna know why?

These idiots, in buying all this new imagine equipment, were still TOO FRIGGING STUPID to make the machines able to image passenger shoes. So we still have the delays of taking off our shoes.

These are the people you are trusting to make you safe!

When I pointed that out at the airport, someone commented that they were working on technology to image the shoes.


Wanna know where your Social Security money is being squandered?

Wanna know what it'll look like soon?

Keep bending over, America!

We've gone from a country founded by Freedom Fighters to a country of punks!

Tuesday, August 30, 2011


...since I have not been inspired to rant at anything lately...

While you're waiting for me to be inspired, or just ticked off, if you're looking at Republican candidates, listen to what this man has to say...

Friday, July 15, 2011


Alex Beam of the Boston Globe asks, What’s wrong with subjecting obese Americans to the same stigmatization that smokers are?

He's serious. I read the article (click here to read it yourself)and he proposes a campaign designed to stigmatize the overweight in the same way smokers have been made to feel for the past quarter-century.

The original idea was not Beams. He'd heard professor Daniel Callahan (retired cofounder of bioethics research institution Hastings Center),speak on a radio program and pose the question "why aren’t overeaters subject to the same stigmatization as smokers?"

Callahan makes a persuasive case: 67 percent of Americans are overweight, he writes. “Obesity is a leading cause of diabetes, heart disease, and kidney failure. There are some prima facie reasons for thinking about stigmatization as one more arrow in the quiver of possible solutions.

No category of US citizens, with the possible exception of prisoners, has been subjected to more government-sponsored economic and social harassment than cigarette smokers. Taxed up the wazoo, forced to pay hundreds of extra dollars for health insurance, tossed out in the rain and snow to sneak a few puffs of the dreaded cancer sticks - smokers are the deadbeat dads of the public health landscape. .

Sadly, the answer Callahan and Beam would propose is to to lead another crusade for stigmatizing men and women, that would be enormously hurtful for a lot of people.

I have an idea!

Why don't we round all these tubbos up and put them in camps?

I'll have to get in line, because those pictures of me in shape are so old that they're worth something to antiquers.

Maybe we can get a good rental rate on Auschwitz!

In both cases we are talking about behavior that is harmful to the individual and costly to society. If the proposal is to charge smokers and obese people more for health insurance, I agree.

In fact, insurance companies already do this. They charge higher rates for people who are expected to incur higher claims dollars. This is a process called underwriting.

The fact that humiliating smokers is a societally approved parlor game is wrong. Treating the overweight the same way will not make it right.

Obese people have been the butt of jokes far longer than smokers have, and yet the obesity rate has climbed to proportons that lead America to label it an epidemic.

You could argue that the obese are the last acceptable targets of discrimination.

Let's say Mr.Beam gets his way. Where would we stop?

Would those rotten cancer sufferers be next? Who do they think they are, anyway, with their special treatment centers and chemotherapies?

And what about those darn Alzheimer's people?

Certainly Mr. Beam and Mr. Callahan are capable of the selection of the new master race!

Maybe we should simply send everyone with a handicapped license plate or a maintenance drug prescription off to a detention center!

Or maybe,and I'm just saying, maybe singling a group of people out or having  preconceived judgments toward people or a person due to a physical characteristic is prejudicial and not in accordance with either the founding principles of this nation or the Golden Rule passed down to us by that Jesus guy a couple of thousand years ago.

Maybe by singling out these groups and persecuting them, America is acting a little bit like a European nation did a few decades ago when it was bent on world domination.

I'm talking about those wacky loveable Nazis, who treated the Jews the way Americans treat smokers and apparently would like to treat fat people. Or were they evil? That's right-they WERE evil!

Hold on - having another idea here - maybe we're supposed to be better than that!

I live in a state where smokers can basically only smoke in their home and in their car without breaking the law. They are reviled and treated like lepers, taxed and bad mouthed, and you know what? People still smoke!

I don't think all of the McDonald's waring labels, Michelle Obama kids programs and increased health insurance premiums are going to get to what really are the roots of the obesity epidemic. A few obvious drivers:

(1) Our lives have become increasingly sedentary. Things that used to require manual effort have been automated, and technology has advanced to where we sit all day at work, sit all night at home in front of a TV or PC, ride around the lawn on a riding mower (if we even bother-there is plenty of immigrant labor to exploit)-heck, we don't even open our own doors on our cars-everything we do has been automated!

(2) Our food has become increasingly processed and unhealthy. Our meats are infused with chemicals, our starches are processed and loaded with sodium, and our vegetables have the nutrients soaked out of them in the cans, or worse sit in refined sugars.

(3) Junk food is readily available. It was not that long ago that if you wanted a piece of chocolate cake you had to make it yourself. From scratch. And what you made would have been better for you than the prepackaged, chemical-and-dye-infused, toxic junk we consume today. How many people under sixty can even bake anymore? It used to be a treat, and a somewhat rare one, and now you can stop and buy all manner of snack foods, and many people have several per day.

(4) Television, the Internet and video games have sapped our children's creativity and activity levels. Pull the plug and kick your kids out of the house. Why don't you go out and join them?

Or come meet me in the weight room-I need a spotter.

And Mr. Beam? Just because no one is buying your rag of a newspaper, don't blame the overweight. It could be worse-you could be working for the Airheadzona Repugnant!

Monday, July 4, 2011


When Arizona's facist big-brother government installed cameras on the freeways to catch speeders, we were assured it was for our safety and had nothing to do with boosting revenue.

One word.


Today, the Arizona Republic site posted this story.

Traffic cameras not profitable for Arizona cities

The story tells us how traffic-cameras in 10 communities generated more than $20 million but cost the cities, towns and counties more to administer than they collected.

Shockingly, the cameras were removed.

The cameras, both stationary and those operated from mobile vans, make plenty of money for the companies that operate them. Redflex Traffic Systems and Scottsdale-based American Traffic Solutions combined earned more than $7 million from 10 urban Arizona municipalities last year, a fraction of their nationwide customer base.

The cameras also make money for the state through an 84 percent surcharge on tickets issued by cities, towns and counties. Those surcharges brought in more than $7 million last year on speed-camera tickets alone, even though the state ended its freeway camera program in 2010.

That money pays for a variety of programs, from training law-enforcement officers and treating juvenile drug addicts to the state Clean Elections Fund.

The state freeway photo program drew intense backlash because it was widely perceived as a revenue generator, not a safety enhancement.

Guess what? The perception was true? IT WAS ALL ABOUT THE FRIGGIN' MONEY!

Gee, Mr. DiscConnected blogger guy...does that mean our government was lying to us?

You got it!

Every time you vote for a silly new program that they push down your throat (or up your behind), sugar-coating it as for your own good, you take one more giant step towards the State running your life by giving up one more freedom that people have given their lives so that you'd have it.

And the government counts on the fact that you're too stupid to know they're doing it and too lazy to do anything about it anyway.

Remember Paul Revere? The Boston Tea Parties? Those people got a lot more enraged over a lot less. Our freedom is so severely curtailed that our Founding Fathers must wonder why the hell they ever bothered.

And don't get me wrong-I am not advocating speeding into busloads of little children.

But we already have laws against unsafe driving-anybody remember vehicular manslaughter?

All we need to do is enforce them.

If we really feel the need to tell adults it's unsafe to text and drive, can't we just round all these morons up and ship them off to that section of Texas that's on the other side of the fence?

Get 'em out of the gene pool!

If this is about revenue, just call it what it is and raise taxes.

So the next time you pass a speeding camera, don't slow down.

Speed up...

Give 'em your best smile...

...And flip 'em THE BIRD!

Tuesday, June 21, 2011


Today, boys and girls, we're going to talk about health care.

More specifically, we're going to talk about health care systems around the world, and the myth that countries like Canada and France have a health care delivery system utopia where everyone is shiny and happy and holding hands.

Catch that REM allusion there?

And I promise to keep the political party jabs and jibes to a minimum, since health care certainly is an issue that warrants discussion because it affects everyone. I do not want to open up the nationalize/privatize debate, but just share some things I learned from an online seminar and (hopefully) make some people at least reevaluate if they think the path we're going down is the best idea.

Okay, just that one jab-I couldn't resist!

One of the largest CPA firms in the world, did a worldwide study on health care consumerism, which included polls of health care consumers.

Let me say that again-they actually asked the consumer.

They didn't have a bunch of wealthy middle-aged jerks who are card-carrying Council On Foreign Relations members who can afford private physicians on retainers discuss health care…they asked the people who actually consume health care services from the system at large.

To be specific, they asked 15,735 consumers in 12 countries. Their sampling method was randomly selected from the online population, representative with respect to age, gender, geography and income.

The results are interesting to say the least.

Let's start at the top-how satisfied were people with their country's health care system?

The survey asked for a rating on a scale of one to ten, where satisfied was between 8-10 and dissatisfied was between 1-3.

Remember during the Clinton and Obama health care reform debates, France and Canada were put forth as the Cadillac, the model that the United States should emulate.

And they did finish well, at fourth and fifth, with the United States at tenth. No country really got a mandate from their people, however.

Only one third of those polled in the two "utopia" countries indicated that they were satisfied.

Surprisingly, the number of people in ALL countries surveyed who rated their health care system between four and seven (I called this neutral) was amazingly similar.

Other questions asked about how those polled felt their country's health care system compared to other countries' systems.

This time, France came in second (average of the three answers), with the United States averaging right in the middle, Canada just below the US and Switzerland at the top. Still, I was a little surprised that the two "Cadillac" countries were not coming in with mandates from the people.

The study pointed out that the typical consumer does not have an informed view of other health care systems, so they typically compare to an "idealistic version" of their own system.

One interesting answer-when asked if they'd be willing to travel outside of their country for care, 9% of Canadians and 5% of French answered yes, compared to 3% of Americans. Even though the French think their system is the best in the world, they were almost twice as likely to seek care outside their country.

I think the most interesting information comes from the strengths and weaknesses of the systems as percieved by the consumers.

When looking at system strengths, which considered treatment innovation and up-to-date technology and facilities, the United States ranked second (behind Switzerland) with an average of 69%, and well ahead of the Clinton/Obama "Cadillac" countries France (59%) and Canada (52%).

Now let's look at weaknesses.

When considering consumer focus, wellness focus and wait time, the United States ranked third (behind Switzerland and Belgium) with an average of 30%, ahead of France (34%) and Canada (35%).

Now all of our innovation is not free. The United States spends $5,711 per capita on healthcare, compared to $3,048 spent by France and $2,998 spent by Canada. That means for every dollar they spend, we're spending $1.89.

Add it all up, and it begs the question, what is Switzerland doing and why don't we model after them?

It's really hard to point to France and Canada's national systems being the solution to our health care issues. Their residents appear more satisifed than ours, but at the same time seem to feel that the care they are getting is not as good.

As opposed as I am to socialism (funny because I work in insuance, and industry that exists on socialism), the idea of health care for all is certainly far more noble a cause than taxing Americans to wage war on various smaller nations.

I am still very concerned on how America can really afford to pay for all of its excess. Obama paints a rosy picture, but the government is living on credit, and many former homeowners in the Phoenix city limits could tell you how well that worked out for them.

I guess the point of this, my lengthiest post ever, is this. Be careful what you wish for, America. You may think you're getting this:

And end up with this:

PS-I hope the accounting firm that conducted this study does not object to my quoting their results and displaying two of their slides.

Friday, June 17, 2011


Though the president himself, his staff, and his supporters around the country are busy devoting everything they've got to his 2012 re-election campaign, Obama revealed Monday that his family isn't necessarily as "invested."

"Michelle and the kids are wonderful in that if I said, 'You know, guys, I want to do something different,' they'd be fine. They're not invested in daddy being president or my husband being president. But they do believe in what we're doing," Obama told NBC "Today Show" host Ann Curry in an interview that aired Tuesday.

And the president revealed that even he sometimes feels like giving up.

"I'm sure there are days where I say that one term is enough," the president said, but he added that what keeps him going is the unfinished work regarding energy, education, and other issues.

In the end, Obama said, if his family is happy, he's happy.

"If the family is doing well, if Michelle is still putting up with me, then I've got enough energy to keep on doing the work that I'm doing."

What is this USAP? Are you quitting? Laying the groundwork for defeat?

Funny-I have been predicting the Kenya Kommunist is a shoe-in for a second term, and Stephen T. McCarthy has been predicting he'd be a one-hit-wonder. Just last night, we had a conversation on that topic.

Maybe McDogg is not just being optomistic...

Why is it that politicians spend most of their time in office spending taxpayer money campaigning to keep their jobs or to apply for new ones? I've lived in Arizona since 1995, and I can't point to one thing John McCain has done except run for president and for reelection to the Senate.

And now we have Obama campainging when he should be, oh I don't know DOING HIS FRIGGIN' JOB!
Many of the president's potential 2012 rivals have been calling for Americans to make Obama a one-term president.

If I want to interview for a new job, I have to take vacation time.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in March dismissed Obama as a one-term president over the issue of health care.  "Obamacare is bad law, bad policy, and it is bad for America's families," Romney told a New Hampshire audience. "And that's the reason why President Obama will be a one-term president."

Last night, Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) drew wide applause during a televised GOP presidential debate in New Hampshire for declaring: "President Obama is going to be a one-term president."

And has Michele said anything tangble about what she'd do in the chair? Nope. More hope and change.
Polls show that economic woes across the country and unemployment continue to drag down the president's approval numbers.

A Quinnipiac University poll released last week showed that after a brief "bounce" following the death of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, the president's poll numbers are back down to a 47-46 approval rating. Polls taken in key swing states of Ohio and Florida this spring have shown that voters are split on whether the president deserves a second term.

I would encourage anyone who is serious about change to read what Ron Paul is saying.  AT LEAST HE'S SAYING SOMETHING!

Quite frankly, if you're just going to vote Romney, you may as well vote Obama in for a second term.



It will save the taxpayers the cost of moving his shit out of the White House. And there really won't be any frigging difference in the outcome.

Saturday, June 11, 2011


The other night, Stephen T. McCarthy and I were talking about my last post, where I pointed out that the same Democruds who voted AGAINST raising the debt ceiling under Bush were now voting FOR it under Barry O.

And lest we forget, I also revealed that the same Repugnicans who thought not raising the debt ceiling would be akin to the One Ring falling into the grasp of Mordor, now all of a sudden have had an attack on conscience and can’t bear to spend more money than they are able to steal…er, tax-from the Americonned Sheeple.

Sadly, this fell right in line with comments Stephen made on his blog back in November 2010-the more things change, the more they stay the same.

During our discussion, Stephen likened our political scenario to the making of a movie about the Civil War-the actors fight on screen, but off-screen take lunch together, go to happy hours, sleep together…

Not a bad analogy.

But just then, an image popped into my head.

Remember Sam Sheepdog and Ralph Wolf?

From the old Warner cartoons?

Wolf and Sheepdog, also known as Ralph E. Wolf and Sam Sheepdog, are characters in a series of animated cartoons in the Warner Bros. Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies line of cartoons. They were created by Chuck Jones.

Ralph is virtually identical to another Chuck Jones character, Wile E. Coyote. He also shares the Coyote's appetite, and persistent use of Acme Corporation products, but he covets sheep instead of road runners.

Sam is a large, burly sheepdog with white fur and a mop of red hair that usually covers his eyes. He very rarely runs and tends to be sedentary in his movements. He does, however, possess effective strength to incapacitate Ralph with a single punch once he catches him.

They’d clock in, and the wolf would get abused in ways that Wile E. Coyote never imagined. Then the lunch whistle would blow, they’d break bread together, and after lunch they’d be back at it until quitting time.

This is our political system.

Ralph and Sam have become a sort of American cultural shorthand for "the usual suspects" or "the loyal opposition," describing two adversaries who have opposed each other for so long and become so familiar with each other that they've come full circle and are now nearly friendly.

Check out the lunch scene at 3:52 and quitting time at 5:50.
Heck watch the whole thing and relive some of your misspent youth!

Like the Republicans and Democrats.

They clock in, and go through the motions of being adversaries, but if you watch their behavior and the outcomes, nothing changes from administration to administration.

Bush spent a fortune and ran up the national debt, mortgaging your children’s future under the umbrella of being the “small government” president.

Obama will spend a fortune and run up the national debt, FURTHER mortgaging your children’s future under the umbrella of jump-starting the economy.

The only constant is the running up of the national debt and the mortgaging of your children’s future.

Wanna bet it continues with the next administration?

People wake up!

Both parties are a farce!

One politician is telling you the truth, although his proposed solutions are too rooted in reality for most Americans.

One politician is calling for sound monetary policy, sound foreign policy, and a return to the framework of the Constitution.

Check out what Ron Paul is saying.

Even if you won’t consider giving him your vote, at least listen to what he’s saying.

And consider it.

And then look at what politicians have been doing since the seventies.

And see if what Doctor Paul is saying has the ring of truth to it.

They're YOUR children. They deserve a sound financial future. And you can still give it to them

Monday, June 6, 2011


Five years ago, Senate Democrats -- including a certain Senator Obama -- objected to President George W. Bush's spending priorities and voted en bloc against Bush's call for raising the debt ceiling.

Now, in an amazing twist of fate, we have a Democratic president (that same Obama feller) and the Democrats are voting to raise the debt ceiling. Obviously, they have all had an epiphany, and this has nothing to do with partisan politics.

The Republicans, ever the fiscal watchdogs, are voting against the limit increase.

The Republicans haven’t always been against increasing the federal debt ceiling. This is the first time in recent history (the past decade or so) that no Republican has voted for the increase. In fact, on most of the ten other votes to increase the federal debt limit that the Senate has taken since 1997, the Republicans provided the majority of the votes in favor.

But we have a Democrat in the White House, so guess which way these guys are voting?

Do you see a pattern here?

These traitors are not doing their duty and looking out for your interest. They are voting their party line. And that party line changes depending on what party sits in the oval office, even if he is an illegal alien.

Some may call this....


I call it....


And who will pay the price for this? Your children and grandchildren!

Our political system has the same “rah rah go team” mentality of the average American sports bar. In fact, the sports fans may be smarter.

Until Americans can stop with this mentality where they choose up sides in politics like they’re picking a team to root for in the Super Bowl, the policitcal machine will continue to rolling on.

Does anybody ever stop and think, what’s really the difference?

Are liberals really liberal? After Bill Clinton was elected, did military foxholes become gay bath houses? Did half the country go on the dole? Besides a very liberal interpretation of his marriage vows, it seemed not so very different from business as usual in Washington.

Under Reagan or either Bush, did corporate executives really take over America (well, more than they had already usurped by the creation of the Federal Reserve, which is a topic unto itself)?

There’s a Spock’s Beard lyric that goes, “At the end of the day, It’s what you do not what you say.”

People-look at what our politicians do!

Look at what they have done for the last forty years. There are no liberals or conservatives. They’re the same. They spew the party rhetoric to get you all fired up, so in the American “my team is the best” mentality you’ll be a staunch Republican or open-minded Democrat without ever giving much thought to what that may mean.

But if you look at how they act, they’re all Marxists who can’t balance a budget. So they borrow money from Communist China and inflate a national debt to the point that your grandchildren will probably be destitute. Or speaking Mandarin, because China will call the loans and reposess all the good places. Better not buy real estate in Manhattan, and I wouldn’t hold out long-term hopes for that rent control.

For what we’re paying in taxes, shouldn’t we all get an intern and a box of Cubans?